2016 (4) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... For the Appellant : Mr. K Jayachandran For the Respondent : Mr. K Mohanamurali JUDGMENT ( The Judgment of the Court was made by M. Jaichandren, J. ) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.35 of 2016, has been filed against the Miscellaneous Order No.40940/2015, dated 24.6.2015, passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai insofar as it relates to the rejecti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ground that the appellant was required to discharge the central excise, on the cost on the inputs supplied free of cost by the principal manufacturers, under the job work provisions as per Notification No.214/86 CE and Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had also been imposed with penalties, under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and under Rule 27 of the Central ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... applications for early hearing filed by the appellant, without any reasons, when the applications have been filed satisfying the situations stated in their own instructions in CESTAT F.No.974/PR(CEGAT)/86, dated 21.2.1986 for grant of early hearing? B. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the early hearing applications without assigning any reasons when it is a statutory applicatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der which early hearing applications could be filed by the assessee or the Department had been enumerated. Since the appellant had satisfied the conditions contained in the said instructions, the applications filed by the appellant for the early hearing of the appeals ought to have been allowed. 7. On hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and o....